Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Internet Porn - Mary Whitehouse is dead.

"When they are small and playing with Lego on the floor, you can be reassured that that’s the case. But when they get a bit older, their entertainment is offered by computers, tablets or mobiles – and this online world can be a dangerous one from a parent’s perspective."

So writes Culture Secretary Maria Miller in today's Mail. There was a time when pornography was the preserve of the shady Soho backstreet or the prohibitive top shelf of the news stand. Now it's everywhere - quite literally available in endless streams at the touch of a button: if your parents have installed an internet firewall, you've got an iPad. If they censor that, there's your iPhone. If they monitor that, you'll have friends whose parents aren't so obsessed with surveillance.

And we're not talking here about pictures of normal sexual intercourse: we're talking about every depravity under the sun - much of it quite illegal, but freely available to the determinedly curious. Studies abound of the of the damaging effects of this - psychologically, physically and emotionally.

The Greek term πορνεία ('porneia') is a much disputed term, having been variously translated 'fornication', 'sexual immorality', 'adultery', 'marital unfaithfulness' or 'whoredom'. The Septuagintuses porneia to refer to male temple prostitution, and so linked with homosexuality, which is corroborated in other sources which translate it 'the fornication of Sodom'. There is now more etymological consensus that it combines extra-marital sexual intercourse (male and female) with an element of payment; to slaves bought and sold for cultic prostitution.

The pornification of society has once again become cultic. On the internet, it is a ubiquitous, malignant menace. How are we to keep our minds and hearts pure against such an onslaught? "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things" (Phil 4:8). But it is simply impossible when you're bombarded day after day with lustful images, obscene filth and violent depravity.

Labour is of the view that 'voluntary controls are not working and parental authority has been undermined by technological change'. They're not wrong, but they did little about it when they were in power, and not a lot has changed in three years. Now the Prime Minister has called a 'No10 summit' to tackle the problem - in particular the disgusting images of child abuse which are often both sexual and violent. You'd think this would be a no-brainer, but Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Facebook, BT, Sky, Virgin Media, TalkTalk, Vodafone, O2, EE and Three are all global brands, and there is simply no global definition of 'child'. The age of consent isn't even standardised in the EU, let alone across the continents. You can pass a law in the UK to remove illegal material from the web, but it won't stop people searching sites in Thailand.

And why focus on the internet, when sexual images are freely available on cable or satellite television, in music videos and advertising? And who determines artistic merit? Isn't one person's porn another person's art? What about erotic literature or films? Are we to filter or block all of these? Would age-verification mechanisms work? What is the technological solution to circumventing domestic law? What is 'normal' pornography? Who are you to impose your normative narrowness upon the more exotic and adventurous? Should we not be free to corrupt ourselves, if we so wish? Is it not a human right? Is not morality relative? Has not the era of religious restraint passed? Sexual licence has triumphed. Who are you to judge what is and is not depraved? Mary Whitehouse is dead.

257 Comments:

There's no need for alarm Your Grace, life will continue on, much as it always has done. Sure, lust is a very strong passion, perhaps the strongest, but as long as we try to remain detached and "don't make it our everything", then we'll be fine.

Negative thinking leads to negative outcomes - if you look for the positive then things will not only seem better, but they will be better. Frankly, I think that relentless negativity is a bigger problem with society than online porn.

As someone who works in IT, I agree with seanrobsville - there is no technical solution. Forget the idea. What we don't have anymore is moral censorship on a cultural level. That is far more effective, but this government has shown that sexual morality is very low on its list of priorities, so Camerons summit will be mostly a waste of time.

It's hypocritical of Miller to be suddenly interested in sexual morality given her recent record. With no moral leadership from the politicians, and not much from the churches either, the situation IS going to get worse.

Even the Daily Mail has what is no more than soft porn images down its pages with lines of pictures of a overt sexual nature beside all its articles. You are right there is no self control by any, the Devil is at large.

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;

2 Righteousness

Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

Fornication of course has the technical meaning of sex with anyone who is not your spouse. Repentance is the only way for the Christian believer.

Your Grace,Cameron’s sudden interest in child porn has more to do with being seen to be doing something than actually doing something. It is also a distraction from other failings in his support of other sinful behaviour.

Naomi, good comments but our concern is with those who do not have the ability to make a rational judgment as to their sinful nature, ie. Children.

Yes Mr Integrity but use of pornography is widespread amongst Christian Believers, as is fornication and the leadership are ignoring their responsibility for the eternal salvation of their congregations souls. If the Christian Believers aren't right with God on Lust and Fornication how can we witness to non-believers ? We can't because we are then only hypocrites.

There isn't ... but that doesn't mean we don't try. And because it isn't perfect doesn't mean it's of no value at all.

Our house is "triple-locked" - not just because of the 4 mini-RebelSaints, but because of my own lack of self-control. Because I am with talktalk, we have the a filter at ISP level which only my wife has the password for (and she gets a txt msg if there is a change to the settings); we use OpenDNS to filter content - with a random password that we have no record of (so we have to reset the password every time we want to change the settings ... takes a good 10 mins of hassle!); our router has URL filtering (my wife has the password).

I can still get round things eventually (Cyberghost) ... but it takes determined effort & time. It stops 95% of unpleasant stuff getting through, and it certainly hinders the late night, tired, self-pitying search for inappropriate things!

I give the analogy of water filtering. I want my water supply to have the shit filtered at source rather than making it the responsibility of each & every household.

We can all philosophise all we want. However, I don't think anyone's rights would be infringed by a more rigorous attempt at stopping images of child porn, bestiality, or men having sex with old people with dementia.

why don't we at least start with these, and if anyone complains or asks why, we can say it's because we have simply decided that it crosses a line and that's that.

I believe we're at a stage now when we have to work out what's next for us as Christians who believe passionately in the truth of God's Word. The Lords vote shows that Parliament is largely no longer with us on social issues. Likewise, the courts have not ruled in our favour when it comes to issues of Christian conscience.

So it's time to rethink the way in which we live and witness the truth of Jesus Christ.

Our society faces many problems as evidenced by this blog. We have been given the answer in Jesus Christ. We are simply jars of clay which contain the treasure of the Gospel, we need to follow His commandments. It's time for the Church to strengthen itself for the persecution yet to come.

The Devil uses sexual sin as a major tool in his weaponry. Christians need to be aware and keep themselves clean sexually.

The Internet whist having many advantages has opened up everyone`s 'living rooms' to the best and the worst that the internet can offer.

The Media is ruled by and controlled by the 'god' of this present World system Satan himself.(The prince of the power of the air.. waves.)

Satan rebelled against God and the hate Satan has for God is poured upon God`s creation in spite and revenge because Satan cannot compete against God.Satan`s ultimate aim is the corruption of Humanity and he does this by encouraging and placing people into bondage to sin thereby under God`s( righteous) Judgement.Drugs, alcohol,pornography are all highly addictive and those who 'play with fire' will inevitably become in bondage to these things.

Those who wish to be 'liberated' to indulge in what God defines as sinful behaviour will become entrapped and will find they need deliverance from these self destructive vices.'Sin' has a fatal attraction and will entice people to indulge in what might seem 'harmless' but will draw them in until they become enmeshed and entangled in it.Jesus came to save us from our sins because once we become entangled we become powerless to save ourselves.

As a Catholic, this whole pornography moral panic from Liberals always hands me a serious laugh. We, the Catholics, are hounded for our supposed prediliction for pedophilia by a society which is so soaked from tip to base in sexual imagery that to all intents and purposes it is constituted for the end of sexualizing children by the time they are eight years old. If you are a Liberal parent attempting to pass on Liberal values to your children, you are essentially grooming them like a pimp, yet you have the stones to sit in judgement on us? If you have a problem with the sexualization of your society (by which I mean western society in total, not particularly British or English society), then remember, this is what you wanted. You worked for this, you struggled to make it happen. If there is a more apposite example of "be careful what you wish for", I can't think what it is.

As anyone with experience of IT security knows, once data is in free circulation, whether it is images or videos, you have no control over it. Distributing electronic files is easier than distributing paper documents. I'm sorry, but the genie is out of the bottle, and the only way to curb the devastating effects is a change of attitude.

At the 'Lady Chatterley' trial, a bishop likened the book to "holy communion". (Not much change there, then). Euphoria greeted the result: the beauty that would flow from the liberation of our impulses.

I wonder if the architects of the sexual revolution ever anticipated the sort of edifice that might result from their specifications?

All more proof that the Frankfurt School has triumphed it seems. Thanks to His Grace for writing and thus reminding me of it. The source of Political Correctness and the removal of all licence albeit coinciding with technology's development. However, I don't think much of the bible being treated as a Christian Koran... as I read somewhere else.

Yes the Frankfurt School is winning, big time. Society will suffer and I do believe that the magnitude of the results flowing from this will take some time yet to build to their full depravity. But the question is , as Naomi King says, what are WE, as Christians going to do about how WE live ? Yes we have a duty to offer good ways of living to the population at large, but many are not listening, the media are controlled by the distinctly liberal types and the Government and Courts are not on our side. So is it time to reinvent the Christian community, as a separate entity, like the monasteries. People could work outside but live and raise children in a protected environment. Do we create Arks, lifeboats, in which Christian people and families, not just like the old single sex monasteries/nunneries, can travel through these desperate times towards a more promising future ? I am being serious here, viable ideas are needed. We need something radically different in which to raise Christian children and young people. The Amish have done it for hundreds of years. There are no new continents to take ourselves off to like the early American colonists so do we partially,, physically separate or what ?

The biggest users of pornography as a group are the homosexual community. One gay on Pink News said 99% of his bent friends used porn. One suspects that it is the disordered gay crowd who put the stuff up on the net to begin with, all of it. They are particularly interested in paedophilia. Normal people just don’t do that sort of thing. The second biggest users are most likely morally empty liberally corrupt atheists.

Try typing in “Is David B a significant user of pornography both gay and straight” on google.

There is now so much free to view porn on the internet, it is destroying the American porn industry. And it will not surprise anyone to know that that is located in the biggest Sodom on this planet – San Francisco.

Anyone who doesn’t believe that Big Gay is behind all this muck, know this. Since he has been inspecting Pink News over the last months, each time a gay porn star dies, they give him a headline. So that his devotees can pay their respects; if respect is a word you can use in a sentence about homosexuality. Cause of death ? invariably suicide or ‘complications arising from medication’.

Why does Big Gay post it ? To interest your sons, nephews and grandsons of course. After all, Gays don’t grow on trees – they have to be initiated...

I'm relieved I'm not the only one who finds 'Peace and Love' Bob intensely irritating! He sounds like some sort of ageing hippie. His kind are part of the problem, with the ostrich mentality, refusing to confront evil.

Porn is a huge problem. I'm not sure most people realise just what a problem it is, especially among younger people. It is an addiction which 'conditions' the brain so that harder and harder 'hits' are required to get a 'high', which ultimately results in normal sexual activity becoming impossible. The younger an addict is, the more difficult to escape from the addiction. A useful video can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU&feature=player_embedded

Add this - a generation of impotent young men - to abortion, homosexual practice, euthanasia - and we have a declining populace - the 'culture of death'.

" If the Christian Believers aren't right with God on Lust and Fornication how can we witness to non-believers ? We can't because we are then only hypocrites?"

I thought that was the point. None of us are right with God. Abraham finally got the point God was making in Genesis 18 "The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."

The problem Paul had was that the believers in Colossae had essentially got the gist of what the new covenant actually meant.

There are no righteous people, especially living in Collosae, (similar to today’s environment) they knew that. Paul realised that their behaviour, although they were saved, (similar to today’s Christians caused God pain), but more importantly ultimately, damaged their relationship with God.

What he came up with does look at first hand as moralising, however, the beauty of his letter is that he states clearly the advantages for us to try to become more like Christ. He stated in the letter that there is something in it for them, here and now to obey the law. Not because they needed to to be saved, but because there is something wonderful here and now to have a deeper relationship with Christ.

How this affects non believers, I don’t really know. You are right we need to get our own house in order first.

That is not done by telling someone that they are evil for looking at “nice” images, rather they need to start to believe that God has something far more wonderful for their lives.

Believe it or not I do think that the Inspector has it. The further you are away from Christ the more that you want to look at porn.

Repentance is fine Naomi. But my experience is that people need to want to repent. That means we need to offer them something else.

So, What else are we offering people? Threats of hell etc for looking at pretty girl are going to be laughed at.

It is interesting is it not, that the Culture Secretary does not appear to argue that the porn in question is a morally outrage in its own right, but it is wrong because children/teens might see it?

Strange, given that as the article here says, we are talking about -is as His Grace notes the hard core, illegal porn, which 99% of us would consider to be outrageous, not just a lad's mag with bare breasts and bottoms or a page 3 of a daily paper .... (which I appreciate can be seen as equally morally wrong, but legal).

So if it is illegal porn, there is presumably laws in place to get it off the web and prosecute those putting it up. So why do we need 'new' laws etc?

Secondly, if we had a society which emphasized and trusted in traditional 'family values', then perhaps we wouldn't have culture secretaries writing about worrying what teenagers etc are looking at on the web.

If I may say anger, hate, wrath are all part of the human emotion cycle as much as peace, love, kindness etc. Unless you live a hermit like life, I really don't think your utopian ideas can actually work.

We all get angry, happy, tearful, sad whatever, it is just a part of life. OK if you are always volcanic or angry, that isn't healthy. But we are all likely to have an episode of anger during a lifetime.

Haven't you ever been angry or upset at something? I think you have those emotions as well, when you referred to Inspector and Nick's 'ungracious' comments... so even you don't have that 'peace' do you?

The problem is that WE have little to offer in this context. What I mean is that repentance is something that happens when we find ourselves personally convicted of sin, and we recognise the fact.

Preaching salvation is good but it is more often a case of planting a seed that may take many years to start to grow, if at all. I agree that threats of fire and brimstone don't usually persuade many people, especially non-believers.

Likewise, merely wearing the Christian badge by going to church, reading and saying all the right things is not salvation, though it may push someone in that direction.

God alone decides who will be saved and who will not. We don't know who is which, but we should always assume that any person could be saved

As to the problem of pornography, it is as Flossie said, a kind of addiction. As with most addictions, those who free themselves from it find themselves mentally and spiritually liberated. However, not all want to be liberated. For some, part of the pleasure is being enslaved by sin.

The study I assume you refer to (Edelman) doesn't actually show quite what you present it as showing. What it demonstrates is that there is a greater propensity for people in conservative states to *purchase* pornography. In fact, the nature of the study precludes any conclusions being drawn about the individual identities of those purchasing porn - though there is a nice sleight of hand by its author where he refers to surveys which establish the conservative and religious characters of the states in question. A casual reader might be led to infer that these surveys are in fact about the people *purchasing* porn - but the study permits no such observation except by suggestion and (in press releases) innuendo.

We might note also that the distinction of *purchasing* is quite an important one - as Cranmer outlines, porn is everywhere, and it is accessible by children despite the fact that very few have access to a credit card. Perhaps all the evidence really shows is that conservative states are more likely to pay for porn?

I don't frankly care much about that point - nor put much stock in it. From what I can tell pornography use is pretty ubiquitous. I'd echo RebelSaint's post as a fellow sinner there too - and observe that accountability is far more effective than any circumventable measure on the internet.

In fact, anecdotally, most of the liberals I know are quite open about their use of pornography. They're "well justified", in "healthy relationships" etc.

In fact, what most liberals want us to give up is not - as your (I'm sure, sincere) suggested course of action might indicate - the *use* of porn, but rather the shame associated with it. It doesn't seem to me at all obvious that giving up on church and embracing liberalism would result in less porn *use* (though it might result in less paid-for use), but rather in the renunciation of shame.

There, I'm afraid, I feel inclined to point, as Cranmer does, to the many other studies showing the negative impact of sexualised cultures, to the increasingly damaged and warped perceptions about sex amongst the young, and, well, to the conscience-invoked shame.

In the brave new Liberal world, we wouldn't find an absence of porn, but merely the repression of shame. Porn, notwithstanding more "deviant" variations, is not nearly as good at offending the liberal as shame. All those patriarchal and traditional values welling up within. The perfect way to bugger up the post-act afterglow. What is needed, I am frequently told, is a liberation from such feelings. Then we will be truly free.

Funny how it all begins with emotional repression, then. Christ demands no such repression of shame: He liberates us from it through forgiveness. I'd rather be a free son of Christ, myself.

Chaps, and ladies,Is not the central question here, arising from this ever increasing plague of electronic filth, just how do do we protect the young, giving Christian parents the space to raise their young people so that they are healthy in body, mind and soul ?Many Muslims wisely, in my opinion, keep their young so busy with their evening religious schools, thus creating a barrier between the corruption of the wider western society and their young, whilst they simultaneously, legally gather in its economic benefits, by living and working here. Are they not one step ahead of us ? Have I identified the pressing problem ?

A nation's so-called "forbidden fruit" will always depend on the sort of nation it is. If the sort of exploitative porn that abuses an individual unable to provide consent were publicised more than it already is, would a Streisand Effect occur, in which more people, motivated by less a sexually-prurient interest than by a need to possess that which is clearly offensive to others?

One would hope not, of course. But there is always an element of society which will do this sort of thing just on general principle.

Maybe I'm extrapolating well too much here, but I see the "need-to-offend-rather-than-personal-thrill" ethos motivating much of the political discourse, e.g., Lefties defending Islamists, against what would seem to be their own ultimate interests, merely because it offends the more patriotic element of the public. As well, there are those of a more rightist bent who seem to relish in walking up to the line of "hate speech" in order to take the p!ss out of the more politically-correct, even though those rightists may not have a hateful bone in their body, merely because it upsets the P-C applecart-- at the cost of being branded a "hater."

It doesn't take much to assume that, when it comes to mockery of the standards others hold dear, that a segment of society will come along merely to inflame the holders of those standards, because that's their little dirty perverted thrill, whatever the subject matter might be.

Its not just he Internet which is shaping the way our society is being formed.'That box' in the corner of the room gives out a constant stream of information(or should that be miss- information?) directing and shaping the' moral value systems 'of Society especially the young who have no means of comparing moral value systems.

They have many other advantages. Strong families, community, self identity, respect for old people etc.

You are valued as a young person for being part of this community. But perhaps the most important you are valued for being a man or a woman and this is seen by the community as (still?) being distinctive. With a definite role and responsibility

Exactly. They have retained the delineations between right and wrong, between good and not good. Many of their values do in fact overlap with Christian ones, although not all of course. So the central question that faces all seriously Christian families, regardless of denomination, and many none Christian but plain decent families, is how does one move in that direction ? Do we too need to create a separation, physical, virtual or what, that is the crux of the matter if we are to address the issue of how we ensure that Christian values endure into the threatening future. Young Christian parents need some practical inspiration, do you agree ?

I personally never *get* why people have to rely on porn anyway. Surely there is nothing more wonderful or pleasurable than having lots and lots of good quality sex with one's beloved wife? (who of course has the ultimate right to do 'it' and under Jewish law can divorce a man if he isn't giving enough regular sex or 'good' sex).

Churches and busybodies have always targeted and obsessed with humanity’s relationship with the sexual act.

Mary Whitehouse was a bigot who set herself up as judge and jury over television content. She was so arrogant to believe that she could view or hear something without being 'corrupted' but the rest of the nation would be somehow be so.

Why one may wonder should this most natural of instincts in all its forms, be the business of anyone other than the willing participants?

My conclusion is that it gives certain groups power to repress and demonise others over something as natural as breathing. In their fascistic moral zeal they attach to the act, which usually brings the most shared joy two people will ever simultaneously experience, some the darkest threats of eternal doom and damnation ever dreamed up by men in order to hijack vulnerable minds to their cause (whatever that may be).

Some even go as un-naturally far as finding something deeply virtuous in denying themselves and others a sexual outlet as if this makes them superior to their fellow beings, yet as has been exposed in recent times they hypocritically indulge in their private ‘pleasures’. The buildings and palaces of the RC Church and its supporters have pictures, murals and statues stashed away that explicitly portray sexual themes but masquerading as art. It’s nothing less than the sly pornography of its day; the preserve of the few – too holy no doubt to be ‘corrupted’ but kept hidden, lest mere mortals should enjoy the voyeuristic thrill they know they get and thereby puncture the illusions they and their Churches like to create around themselves. In my opinion pornography only oversteps the line of harmless sexual arousal when it involves the involuntary manipulation of any of the participants.

The fact that some sex crimes have been committed where the perpetrator has tried to deflect blame by citing pornography as a prime mover of them to committing the crime just doesn’t stack up; If this logic is extended to the many millions of porn users who don’t force sexual attacks upon unwilling victims is taken in to consideration it is possible than pornography is playing a positive role in providing stimulation to achieve a satisfactory sexual experience without involving anyone else other than the viewer or viewers .

The fact that pseudo-porn is everywhere in the high street; in advertising, music videos, literature or rap lyrics is more damaging than hard-core porn viewed occasionally and privately.

This is especially so in the matter of children developing in a society that fails to define the difference between fantasy and reality that ends up with them being unavoidably presented with the ‘image/role’ of woman, reduced, comodified and endorsed as temptress or subservient to the alpha-male sexual stereotype.

However, if China can force Google to block politically sensitive sites then I’m sure they can do the same for illegal porn sites but this is not to say that I think porn should be banned outright: it has existed since man found he could draw and image in the sand with a stick (or similar)

It is up to parents to guide their children in their approach to life and the internet. If they go on porn sites themselves, as the figures suggest that many do, then they should not be surprised if their children do the same; only the parents should not condemn them, but explain that they should not be under any illusion that what they may see does not come without individual responsibility and that they are under no guarantee to find a partner who enjoys the same explicit activity.

The modern world views sex primarily in terms of personal gratification. Other people become objects to be used for the pleasure of the Self. Those other people may be used willingly and they may in turn use, but the ultimate focus of sex becomes the Self for all involved. That is exactly the pedagogical message of pornography, and that is why the modern world cannot find fault with it. What after all is pornography but vicarious participation in sex with faceless anonymous willing bodies?

The tone of the debate indicates a great disfunction within society and the question was raised what can we do. Another comment was that Muslims have managed to avoid the problem better than we have because they supervise their children more. Our liberal society does not criticize that for fear of being Islamaphobic. If Christians were to do that we would be accused of being insular and domineering. Nevertheless, I think Christians have to start being more assertive particularly with liberal clergy and tell them to leave. We follow the Prince of Peace and we have seen the results of our deference and tolerance - the disintegration of society. These events mark out our times as being very dangerous spiritually. When Christ comes again will he find any faith on Earth?

"The Internet whist having many advantages has opened up everyone`s 'living rooms' to the best and the worst that the internet can offer.

The Media is ruled by and controlled by the 'god' of this present World system Satan himself.(The prince of the power of the air.. waves.)"

Well, maybe .... but its not just pornography that people get off the internet, now is it?

And the internet and social media is also a force of great good too.

DanJ0Care to answer this:

"Who are you to impose your normative narrowness upon the more exotic and adventurous? Should we not be free to corrupt ourselves, if we so wish? Is it not a human right? Is not morality relative? Has not the era of religious restraint passed? Sexual licence has triumphed. Who are you to judge what is and is not depraved?"

What's that got to do with me? I merely pointed out that I, in common with many people I expect, am not simply using other people to get myself off. I nevertheless stand by what I have said many times that sex in itself is not a moral act. If some peopke want self-gratifying sex them that's up to them but having sex with no intention of procreating does not necessarily imply mere self-gratification.

Porn has been available to, if not children, then at least teenagers for a while now. Certainly when I was a young lad X years ago, if you wanted to get a magazine you could. I think that parental attitudes are key, but also the parent child relationship. With it being so readily available on the internet, those that understand the dehumanising, addictive dangers of pornography are more at liberty to address and discuss the issues with their children, I think. That may be a silver lining to a rather large and dark cloud for society however.

In a word, yes. If Muslims can be assertive within their communities and hold it all together why can't Christians? We were in past ages. Even if it means withdrawing, to regroup and then return strengthened, spiritually. The simplified Sunday School of yesteryear, with Jesus meek and mild, isn't working against a rampant assertive consumerist, exploitative societal modelwhich just keeps pushing us aside. Continue with it and we expire, largely. An earlier more assertive, confident approach is needed. But firstly we need to put our own house in order, and my Church, Anglican is amongst the worst for continuous compromise and accommodation. Personally I'm sick of seeing Christian leaders bowing to the world. I want them to firmly and quietly state their position, on a take it or leave it basis. Here , this is the choice, please choose your path.

"and the question was raised what can we do. Another comment was that Muslims have managed to avoid the problem better than we have because they supervise their children more"

Here you missed the point, it is not supervising children more, rather building a community the nourishes our children. It has to start with the Church and it has to involve bring up boys to be men and girls to be women......

and celebrating them as they grow.

If you get the culture that you are a sick looser for looking at porn. They won't look at porn.

We cannot wrap them in cotton wool as the saying goes. It is up to us to build character, nothing else will work.

" Personally I'm sick of seeing Christian leaders bowing to the world. I want them to firmly and quietly state their position, on a take it or leave it basis. Here , this is the choice, please choose your path. "

Amen

Also

Which sort of leader will the young respect?

The weak and accommodating of course.......!

Yeah Right!

That is why the CofE does so well with the young.

The boring church with no principles sums it up and now homosexual Bishops? Are they going to turn the tide?

It is far wider than simply the moral depravity of the subject matter but also brings problems to relationships.

You may also wish to read and perhaps join in the discussion at http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/a-monastery-for-hell/ which also discusses the problem of porn from a Christian perspective.

As of the morality of the country, given the propensity of the Scottish police to arrest Christian street preachers, while the government produces legislation to permit same-sex marriage and continues to allow abortion, we are obviously going straight to a young lady, called Helena Hand-Cart.

This is a summary of your oft repeated statements against what you see as the tyranny of religion.

"Who are you to impose your normative narrowness upon the more exotic and adventurous? Should we not be free to corrupt ourselves, if we so wish? Is it not a human right? Is not morality relative? Has not the era of religious restraint passed? Sexual licence has triumphed. Who are you to judge what is and is not depraved?"

My answer is: I am a Christian and history shows that God's ways, if not followed, result in the disintegration of family life and social cohesion and lead to human misery and chaos.

As an atheist and someone opposed to the notion of any morality based on faith in a God, care to defend this position?

I blame the homosexuals for starting all this free porn on the internet and the rise in the use of web cams. In the 80s porn was behind a really pricey paywall that you had to access with a credit card only. Unless young Johnny got hold of dad's card and passwords he couldn't access the porn.

Now any old housewife, homosexual or teenage trollop with exhibitionist tendencies or a desire for fame is rolling around naked in their bedrooms and lounges in front of a webcam for a few bob or for free even. I'd say if adults want to indulge in watching this then they should have to pay handsomely.

Some years ago I logged on to Microsoft Netmeeting expecting to use this for web conferencing but it was full of naked young men wanting sex over the internet at 9:30 in the morning, I choked on my breakfast croissant I was so shocked.

Surely to get something published on to the www you have to go through a vetting procedure with the ISP especially if it is photos of a sexual nature? There must be a program to scan photos that have naked bodies in them, especially children’s and scenes of gratuitous violence?

Why don't Internet Service Providers charge heavily for those who want to put up any x rated adult content? Or can't they control this anymore? I would say they, the ISP's don't want to be bothered to control x rated content as it's not really in their interests and would cost them.

Our standards are in the gutter and I would expect the Church to have more than a few words to say about this otherwise why have a Church anymore?

People have no respect for their bodies and this has come from the homosexual communities.

The kind of unrestrained homosexuality you're referring to is, I think, a symptom rather than a cause of a wider moral decline. Such immorality has been around since the time of the Fall.

The mores and norms of a society exercise a strong influence on its members to resist evil and to be open to the Gospel. This is a key principle in Catholic social teaching as opposed to some protestant teaching on salvation.

You'll be pleased to learn Poland, a strong Catholic country, has kicked homosexual civil unions into the long grass for at least a generation. Predictably, the queer folk on Pink News are full of bile about such 'bigotry' and their comments offer an insight into their disturbed and disturbing mental and moral outlook.

I must be a special case because I primarily do it to express love and give pleasure. Go me!

Leaving aside the completely different definition of 'love.'

I don't know about others, but I am finding it hard to not notice moral content in this statement. It was after all an obvious response to my assertion that the modern world finds pornography to be a perfect reflector of modern sexual morality. Consent is the determining factor and consent doesn't require notions of love or relationship. It just requires a willingness to act upon desire. This attitude inherently objectifies people in the quest for self-gratification. People may of course voluntarily add additional constraints but the only required boundary is consent.

And so the response (as mentioned above) comes back ...

I must be a special case because I primarily do it to express love and give pleasure. Go me!

Ah, see. We are supposed to learn that modern sexual morality does not inevitably lead to objectification. It can also be about love and giving pleasure. It's almost as if reducing another human being to a mere object for the purpose of obtaining self-gratification was ... well ... bad. That kind of 'bad' that implies 'moral content.' How do I read this assertion any other way?

But that is the curious point. Since you (helpfully) state right on this thread ...

I nevertheless stand by what I have said many times that sex in itself is not a moral act. If some peopke want self-gratifying sex them that's up to them

... the difference between your proffered motivation and a motivation of self-gratification is purely arbitrary. You are as much as saying "Sure, some people drink root beer but I drink cola." Why did you feel compelled to point out the (according to your worldview) arbitrary non-moral difference between these two motivations? It should have made no difference to you at all. If sex has no intrinsic moral content, then the motivations for engaging in it shouldn't matter. It should not have occurred to you to say "Go me!" And yet it did. It made enough of a difference that you felt compelled to defend the basis of your sexual morality from what you should have considered an inconsequential matter.

As a long-term addict - since the my early secondary school days in the 70s - I would like to warn the young who frequent this blog, that pornography addiction is one of the surest roads to ruin, right up there with heroin addiction. In terms of time lost and relationships ruined there is no sadder spectacle than a porno addict. The clarity and coherence of the mind becomes cloudy and corrupted, the body soft and lazy. And this is apart from whatever punishment is awaiting us in the afterlife. Nothing good ever comes from pornography, stay away from it like the Ebola virus.

As to the tendency to sexualize the young and the vulnerable, it is fairly obvious that the type of pornography peddled by Playboy no longer satisfies the onanists, and thus the net is cast wider in the search for unreachable pleasure. One of the most effective legal ways to fight this, is never to give in on the age of consent.

"If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, lest you be in danger of losing the Kingdom of God..." - these words of Jesus apart from its implications for life eternal, ring true, brings tears to my eyes, in that a pornography addict has already lost the Kingdom of peace and equanimity that was within reach in himself. But the Lord Jesus Christ has Himself provided the cure, as He says in relation to adultery of the heart and its control - "For men this is impossible, but not for God."

Carl:"Why did you feel compelled to point out the (according to your worldview) arbitrary non-moral difference between these two motivations?"

My comment was just exposing another of your false dichotomies, of course. My example sits ncely between your real-world black and your Calvinist white, forcing you to try to defend the dichotomy by attacking something else. But no, that won't work either because you've misunderstood the rest of it I think.Just to clarify since in the past some people have failed to grasp this, I think sex is not a moral act in itself but that doesn't mean sex acts are not moral acts; the morality of them comes from different things than a disregard of a divine purpose. Making love (as it is often called) is an act of generosity and I would still do it even if I had no physical feelings from the act.

God bless you Ivan for your candour. There is a book entitled "An Affair of the Mind" which charts the destruction to wife and family following pornography addiction. It is not pretty, I will see if I can find a reference.

We see today the Girl Guides has gone the way of all flesh in the corruption of our young.

The removal of God and country is only the beginning of this story which would leave the founders of the Girl Guides turning in their graves. The new Chief Executive of the Girl Guide movement who was appointed about six months ago masterminded this change of the oath which all Guides will make from September. Julie Bentley happens to be the former head of the Family Planning Association a leading provider of abortions and sexual ‘advice’

This is what the Telegraph reported about the issue - The rethink followed the appointment of the group’s new chief executive, Julie Bentley, the former head of The Family Planning Association, who described the Guides as “the ultimate feminist organisation”.

Highly organised and targeted demonic activity, you have to admire them.

An Affair of the Mindby Laurie Hall4.23 of 5 stars Laurie Hall's story reveals pornography's destructively subversive side and offers comfort, encouragement, insight, and a plan of action to women whose husbands are addicted. Be warned it is a very long road with much heartache along the way.Available on Amazon

Phil: "As I have said before, homosexuals are easy to blame for societies failings, when needed."

Yes, I remember you saying before and also the subsequent thing about hanging and life-imprisoning gay people around the world, including Africa and Iran. I just put that down to your getting in touch with your inner demon and its viciousness; an unedifying thing for a Christian but to be expected at times. Of course, there will always be groups who do want minorities to suffer for various reasons and who take scapegoating opportunities when they arise so we must be on our gaurd. I think the thing I can take away from this is how right it is to make hay when the sun shines so that we're well-established and integrated with the majority population. Obviously, the drive for same-sex marriage is an important part of that and I think your comments justify when we shouldn't accept anything less than equality.

DanJ0, I think your comments justify when we shouldn't accept anything less than equality.

So all these decades before SSM you’ve been unequal ? Do you know, never had the slightest inkling that was the case.

In the normal world, we all wonder what future steps will be taken by Big Gay for ‘equality’ and how much it’s going to cost us. Of course, that's rhetorical, not that you would have answered anyway, as this man knows the ultimate. To wit, any criticism of the homosexual lifestyle to be a hate crime. And we know what the state does to criminals, criminals convicted of hate...

You must admit that you types have done damn well lately. You came from nowhere, had parliament licking your behinds, until the bubble bursts that is, and the Gay Agenda is discussed amongst beer drinking circles. Beer drinkers who have sons.

When the Inspector was a schoolboy, he took a great interest in the heavier elements of the periodic table. They really are genuine elements you know. OK, so they can only be produced in laboratory conditions, and even then exist for only a fraction of a second. But they are honest to goodness elements, are they not ? And so is an ordered gay lifestyle for all who want one, even a beer drinkers son...

Danj0 is making hay while the sun shines - that includes calling marriage an infringement of his equal/civil rights. As you say, we all know where this is leading, indeed it is happening already. Given that Danj0 is more than happy to father children who may never know him and certainly won't grow up with him, that is par for the course I would say.

"I think the thing I can take away from this is how right it is to make hay when the sun shines so that we're well-established and integrated with the majority population. Obviously, the drive for same-sex marriage is an important part of that and I think your comments justify when we shouldn't accept anything less than equality."

The openness etc is a relatively new approach. with all new approaches there are risks. Not least everyone knows who the gays are.

I think you are banking on the values of this society remaining constant.

Unfortunately for you the only values that seem to remain constant of extended periods of time are religious ones. Most are hostile at heart to homosexual acts. That is why in my view the push to degrade Christianity by the methods we have discussed lots of times on this blog.

The State/politicians have run out of both integrity and ideas in the eyes of the population. How long the BBC etc can keep the lid on it remains to be seen.

DanJ0 and others of his ilk are no fools William. They know the tide, which brought them to the fore, could just as easily wash them back out again.

While it’s good for them, Big Gay would like the following to happen. A man shacks up with a woman then separates. He moves in with a male friend and they have a gay relationship. After, the man either goes on to another woman or another man. It matters not. For Big Gay, the important issue is that he gave same sex a go. Big Gay is rather tired of being outside. He wants to come in and be part of society. That’s it in a nutshell, you know...

Half of all children born in the UK are being raised by one parent, usually the mother, according to a new report by the Centre for Social Justice. A million children in Britain grow up having no meaningful contact at all with their fathers. This is compounded by the dearth of male teachers in schools.

"After having accompanied and approved the complete demolition of the British family, the Government is now intent in absolutely perverting its very meaning, introducing institutionalised sodomy and sexual perversion and telling us this is good, because in some satanical way two perverts would be a family and you see, we need all the “families” we can get."(Mundabor)

Archbishop Cranmer asked:Should we not be free to corrupt ourselves, if we so wish? Is it not a human right?

“Children with separated, single or step-parents are 50 per cent more likely to fail at school, have low self-esteem, struggle to make friends and with their behaviour. They often battle with anxiety or depression throughout the rest of their lives."

“Indications of future instability are reflected in the continued increase in the number of people cohabiting, Parents who cohabit are three times more likely to have separated by the time their child is aged five than parents who are married.”

“Families, committed relationships and safe environments are the most powerful down payment this country could make against deprivation,”

It'll almost certainly be economic or major war driven if so. In the meantime, we're in a period of evolution which is driven in part by technological advances, in particular regarding mobility and communication. One of the casualties is your religion because people are freer to exchange ideas, broaden their experiences, and recognise their individual. Religious hegemony is difficult in that environment.

"I think you are banking on the values of this society remaining constant"

Quite the opposite. I'm relying on culture changing, and on making enough headway to be mainstream and unremarkable. As long as our values remain rooted in liberal democracy, it's all good ... and a secular State is quite likely at some point.

"The openness etc is a relatively new approach. with all new approaches there are risks. Not least everyone knows who the gays are. "

I think you need to work on your Christianity some more as this barely conceiled mob and pitchfork desire of yours is surely not edifying for other real Christians to see.

Explorer: "What such heteros want is child-free sex for themselves; and the price of that is tolerance of gay sex."

I think you have it back to front. Contraception has allowed for child-free sex and that's well established. The relaxed attitude to homosexuality in recent times is merely a consequence, not a price to pay or any sort of condition for it. People have simply realised that we're normal, where normal is a state of micro-diversity. Acceptance of homosexuality as a natual and harmless trait just follows. People have varied sex lives and the details are part of the private space ... except by observation to homophobes in the case of homosexuality where an almost exclusive focus on the details of the sex itself is a trademark characteristic I've found.

William:"Danj0 is making hay while the sun shines - that includes calling marriage an infringement of his equal/civil rights."

An absurd to say about someone who advocates extending the social institution of marriage to include same-sex couples. It's a matter of social justice, at least in part, but we don't have a civil right to be married at present so it can hardly be infringed upon.

We, collectively, but not you. As I recall, I asked you again and again and again but you skipped over it each time. You can google to see pictures of young, teenaged gay men hanged from cranes in Iran if you want to see for yourself what you wouldn't condemn if I recall correctly. But perhaps you'll condemn it now? Including proposed life imprisonment in parts of Africa for consensual gay sex between adults in private.

Marriage and children mean nothing to you other than their utility in normalising homosexuality. They are just more hay to be scythed. So marriage becomes an unjust institution that infringes your equal rights and your children are represented by trips to the sperm donation clinic. How lovely is that?

William, you're sounding like a bitter old man now. The reality is of course that I value marriage and children, and that I recognise the children ought to be brought up in a stable, nurtering environment. Moreover, I recognise the social value of the institution of marriage, including its usefulness for raising children. Of course I do, I use stability and social value to justify extending the institution to same-sex couples. Hence, you're full of crap.

"I use stability and social value to justify extending the institution to same-sex couples."

SSM has been an issue of your rights, an attempt to correct an unjust social institution and now it is a case of just extending a social value. And I am sure that we can move right back again. Your arguments shift as freely as the moving sands of your moral framework.

"The reality is of course that I value marriage and children, and that I recognise the children ought to be brought up in a stable, nurtering environment."

The reality is, of course, that you are redefining the institution so that it no longer describes the ideal nurturing environment in which to have and raise children. And then you say that I am full of crap!

As you know, its fairly obvious Naomi, that the addiction to pornography is destructive to family life. Further the consumers of pornography have it on their conscience that much of what is on the internet is produced under coercion. There is no way to avoid this conclusion.

DanJ0 said ..."The reality is of course that I value marriage and children, and that I recognise the children ought to be brought up in a stable, nurtering environment.Moreover, I recognise the social value of the institution of marriage, including its usefulness for raising children. Of course I do, I use stability and social value to justify extending the institution to same-sex couples."

With a father and a mother who remain together and who instil a moral code?

The reality is, of course, that you value no such thing and refuse to recognise harm to our children this *equality* between apples and pears brings.

" ... normal is a state of micro-diversity. Acceptance of homosexuality as a natual and harmless trait just follows. People have varied sex lives and the details are part of the private space."

Except such "micro-diversity" (i.e. sexual licentiousness and perversity), isn't *normal* and once institutionalised and culturally acceptable, has serious macro-consequences.

William: "SSM has been an issue of your rights, an attempt to correct an unjust social institution and now it is a case of just extending a social value. And I am sure that we can move right back again. Your arguments shift as freely as the moving sands of your moral framework."

The justification and my advocacy has always and inevitably had multiple pillars. Note your insertion of "just" in there to try to make your simple-mindedness my problem not yours.

"The reality is, of course, that you are redefining the institution so that it no longer describes the ideal nurturing environment in which to have and raise children. And then you say that I am full of crap!"

I said you are full of crap because of your crap argument earlier based on the false characterisation you used to try to bolster it. That you simply don't like my comments doesn't make me full of crap as a result ... but nice try.

William hang in there, that man. You might like to know that this man in his extensive examination of gay aspiration, has yet to read anything resembling concern for children involved in the lifestyle. Nothing at all. It’s as if they are merely accessories. Of course, the present campaign for same sex marriage is nothing but the desire for a must have accessory. If it’s good enough for straights, etc...

Well, the nearest thing he has heard is that Elton John admitted it was going to be tough for his (?) child to be without a mother. First time the Inspector has come across a gay thinking about someone else's rights and not their own. What an achievement – it can’t have been easy for him to do that...

Marriage and children mean nothing to you other than their utility in normalising homosexuality. They are just more hay to be scythed. So marriage becomes an unjust institution that infringes your equal rights and your children are represented by trips to the sperm donation clinic. How lovely is that?

What else? It's just a load of crap. You simply have no basis for saying it other than to make up something in order to vent your spleen about same-sex marriage at someone. Well, it's been highlighted and thrown back at you, so off you trot.

Inspector: "First time the Inspector has come across a gay thinking about someone else's rights and not their own."

So much for your self-flagellation in monitoring all things gay for 'research' or whatever people like you call it these days. Have you not been monitoring the site of Peter Tatchell, the Everyman (gay version) imagined by religionists of the more zealot bent.

William: "Marriage and children mean nothing to you other than their utility in normalising homosexuality."

I support the institution of marriage because it encourages social stability, provides mutual emotional and financial support away from the State, it is a valuable structure in which to raise children, and so on. I encourage gay people to marry, when it becomes available.

Moreover, my grandparents and parents were married. My mother remarried. My brother is married. Lots of my friends are married. I've attended lots of weddings and I see the advantages for everyone who chooses it. Why on earth do you imagine marriage means nothing to me?

Of course children are important to me. They're people, for starters. They have inherent value. They continue society into the future. Most of my friends have children and I'm part of that world. Heck, I was a child once myself, as was my brother, my mother and father, my grandparents. Why on earth do you imagine children mean nothing to me?

You're just writing crap, aren't you? Like I said.

"They are just more hay to be scythed."

Look at that 'just' there. Where did that come from? Have I not justified same-sex marriage in terms of existing marriage attributes lots of times here in the past?

No. The institition of marriage is not unjust. However, I have argued that given the nature of marriage now and the similarities there with same-sex relationships, it is unjust not to allow same-sex couples to get married. Moreover, I don't have "equal rights", hence the proposal and current bill before Parliament to extend marriage to same-sex couples. Duh.

"[...] and your children are represented by trips to the sperm donation clinic."

I've no idea what that is all about other than perhaps an allusion to my teasing Grasper every so often when she thinks that I cannot have children of my own because I am gay, bless her. Perhaps you'd better explain that.

Inspector: "One asks himself why LGBT can’t be content with equal but different, which is what they always were, are, and always will be..."

Apparently, we'll be scapegoats when society changes because most people have a downer on it, despite the majority apparently supporting same-sex marriage in the polls and a huge change in social attitudes towards homosexuality over the last two decades or so, observable all over the place.

DanJ0. What’s all this scapegoat business ? Sure there’s been a 30% increase in homophobic assault in the Thames Valley / London area, but one thinks you can put that down to ‘increased product awareness’ as the businessmen would say.

You say there has been a huge change in attitudes towards homosexuality over 20 years. Well that can be explained by the British way of not concerning himself with what his neighbour is about. But that is as far as it goes. If Big Gay refuses to disband after SSM is passed, and takes ‘the struggle’ to schools, you’ll be back to as you were in 1986....

Do I really have to? You told a large, flightless bird a while ago, on this very blog, that you have been a sperm donor. Do you deny this? Therefore, it seems logical that you are happy to produce your own children, but not raise them yourself. An absent father, even at conception. Given that you are happy for your own children to be brought into the world without caring for their well-being, your concern for the well-being of other peoples' children rings rather hollow. This is reinforced by your support for the redefinition of marriage - the one institution that defines the ideal way to have and raise children.

How can marriage, the sexual union of a man and a woman, be called just, yet saying that a relationship between two men cannot be called marriage is unjust? It's just more quibbling from you I'm afraid.

DanJ0e, is this true ? Your love muck may have fathered a child ? Absolute madness – you do realise that the children (...or should that be victims...) of such a nefarious operation have full access to their biological parents these days. What are you going to say when a stranger arrives at your door says “You owe me, big time”

I don't keep records and files, I have a good memory for key words and phrases for google, and I rely on the truth regarding myself. Obviously you were at a disadvantage yourself on that second point. As for the comment, let's see what William comes up with. As I said, I have no recollection of saying what he says.

William: "The quote isn't a part of my argument. My argument stands without it."

Your argument relies on a fact that you have merely asserted but are unable or unwilling to substantiate. Let's face it, you don't know me in real life so your only evidence of this 'fact' is something you assert I have said here, and that is quite clearly being questioned.

I've ripped the rest of your comment away now and so you are relying on that last little bit, which I just assumed was rhetoric at first given my lack of recollection, otherwise you are left with nothing other than a pile of crap. But it's not a worry for me either way since I don't think it does the work you want of it anyway even if what you could produce a quote. I think I can simply argue what you say doesn't follow. So, I'm in a strong position whichever way this falls.

But what about yours? Firstly, it must chafe a bit to have a would-be ally bouncing around you here in his old-school Dodo mode who you have sniped at on many occasions and who was caught lying in his current ID in the most spectacular fashion not that long ago. Ouch. Aren't you tempted to tell him to sod off as he's just making it worse for you?

Secondly, you have asserted that I have said something you are relying on but don't seem to be able to substantiate despite multiple demands to do so and despite the comments here being in the public domain and nominally searchable in google. Nevertheless you still insist that my being a sperm donor is a fact, perhaps quietly hoping that Dodo will manage to get me to publish what to me based on my recollection would be new information here about my private life, confirming or denying something you really need in the absence of evidence so far. It's not a great position, is it?

Moreover, you might perhaps be worried that I have been sitting on a URL pointing to a conversation Dodo and I might have had about this topic a while ago which might shed light on this but unfortunately does not validate your assertion? Well, we'll see what comes of that later maybe.

So, you've made an argument and it relies completely on your assertion of a fact which is being questioned and which you can't or won't substantiate despite the burden of proof falling on you to do so and despite being asked multiple times to substantiate it. On top of that, you've committed the gambler's folly by raising the stakes so much so that sloping back to your sniping position without doing so would be a walk of shame. Oh dear.

There is a link between pornography and artificial insemination. It centres on whether there is a moral purpose to sex and if the conjugal act should be respected and restricted to heterosexual, married spouses.

"Pornography ... perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others ... It is a grave offense."(Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Artificial insemination also perverts the conjugal act.

"Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques ... infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage ... They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another ... procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union ..."

If these positions are is accepted, civil authorities should prevent both by whatever means necessary.

Pornography should be eradicated and if the will was there it would be. Artificial insemination is also immoral. Both reflect a perverted approach to love, marriage and sexual union and contribute to the destabilising of civil society. Why have a State if it fails in its duty to promote social good?

Dodo, even the Victorians had their smutty postcards and got excited by pictures of a well-turned ankle. As the blog-owner has pointed out, technology has made pornography ubiquitous and I regret that state of affairs. However, I have no real answer to it that isn't likely to cause more harm than good elsewhere.

As for the morality of artificial insemination, I don't agree with you at all but I note that you hold a consistent position as we had much the same sort of conversation way back here:

at the bottom of the page and onto the next, ironically in response to the Inspector suggesting that gay people have no interest in future generations.

I have a consistent position too as my comment at 20 December 2011 20:45 shows, where I noted a Taleban direction of thinking in some of the Roman Catholic arguments around here. I ought to sell teeshirts with the last sentence of that written on them for when one bishop or another pipes up in the media.

"Why have a State if it fails in its duty to promote social good?"

The State promoting social good is one thing. Sanctioning differing opinions and different lifestyles is quite another. You have a significant authoritarian streak I think, much akin to that of the Taleban as I have suggested.

Well, certainly I'm no liberal. And I think you'll find God is fairly 'authoritarian' when it comes to following His Divine Will - and the consequences of not doing so are clearly manifest in this life and will be permanent in the next.

I'm not a Muslim and I don't advocate imposing Christianity through force via a theocracy.

I do think the State should uphold and promote the sanctity of life long heterosexual marriage for the purposes of raising children. I also believe it should ensure a moral framework is provided for conjugal love and for procreation.

Your stock answer as an anti-theist is to dismiss all faiths because ... well ... there's more than one. Never mind the mounting evidence that sexual immorality has severe social and individual consequences.

Dodo: "Your stock answer as an anti-theist is to dismiss all faiths because ... well ... there's more than one."

I like to remind you that there are others with very firm views on how the rest of us should live, including people of other religions who are on the wrong side of the fence, and who think there should be some enforcement to that effect. When you make the sort of comment you made above about divine will to someone who doesn't hold the same beliefs, perhaps you might like to consider how you receive it when (say) a Muslim talks about Allah's will and the consequences of your ignoring it yourself. Water off a duck's back, right? Pointless noise? Etc?

Brief because a) As HG stressed, this thread is about porn.b) We have guuests arriving soon.

DanJ0: You reject Xianity & Islam both. Peter and I accept the one and reject the other.

Some dofferences. The Resurrection: to be assessed by historical criteria. The indwelling Spirit, and the evidence of changed lives (eg Charles Colson before and after.)

The derivative nature of Islam. Its claim to be the original foundational religion not borne out by textual evidence; whereas Xianity has far and away the best-attested documents from the ancient world.

Pointless noise, nothing! An opponent, but one to be taken very seriously! In the past, the likes of Peter and me would have been given three choices: death, conversion, or dhimmi status. Long term, I suspect not much has changed.

Did you see 'Homeland'? Abu Nasir at the end of Series 2 says that Islam will triumph over the West because it is prepared to face death for its beliefs, and hedonism isn't.

Chrisitianity doesn't feature in the equation. If Abu Nasir (or his script writer) is conflating Christianity with relativist hedonism, then that's a pretty fundamental error: given the long record of Christian martyrdom, and so utterrly different from the Islamic version.

That Muslims are prepared to die for their faith is not in question.It was formalised in the era of the Crusades with The Old Man of the Mountains and the cult of the Assassins, and has continued ever since.

The ancestor of modern hedonism (and its attendant relativism) is Epicurus. Evil is pain, and good is the avoidance of pain. It is not of such beliefs that martyrs are made.

No, I pointed at Dodo's authoritarian streak regarding State power, to which he justified it with reference to his god. I pointed out that Muslims do the same thing with their god too i.e. of what use is a justification involving a god to someone who doesn't believe in that god? Dodo said that in a Christianity is worth dying for in the choice you pointed out (though I doubt very much that he'd do it himself) so I said that Muslims say the same thing about Islam i.e. that people are willing to die for something does not make it true as far as the rest of us are concerned.

And I'm pointing out that those who defend Christianity are not obliged to defend other religions as well.

I fully agree with your last sentence: dying for something does not make it true (Kamikaze pilots, James Jones in Guyana...). My point is that hedonism flees the very idea of martyrdom (list of Epicureans who died for their faith?)

Disagreeing with bullying doesn't mean you won't get bullied. Disagreeing with Islam doesn't give you immunity from its consequences. Historically, disagreement would have got you death (since Liberalism would not have been a book Islam recognised as acceptable for becoming a dhimmi).

We all have a world view which we believe to be true (if we didn't believe it, there would be no point in holding it) and which we wish others would share. So if you believe that God is the creator, you inevitably believe that God's rules apply to everybody. Hence Ieter's views (the 'Dodo' bit is before my time). PC advocates impose on others the view that it is wrong to impose your view on others. People who oppose censorship (if they are in power) censor the views of those who would impose censorship. Those who believe in free speech deny a platform to those who would abolish free speech. Who can blame them?

I deny that anything else I said is tangential. My observation that to deny the validity of something does not render you immune from it arose directly out of your statement.

Explorer: "My observation that to deny the validity of something does not render you immune from it arose directly out of your statement."

Well, thanks for sharing.

Anyway, I doubt very much that Dodo actually believes in god but there's no doubt he promotes Roman Catholicism straight off the shelf here. He can claim he's 'righteous' in his authoritarianism because he's echoing his chosen religion and that's fine. However, Muslims can also claim they're righteous for the same reason and that's fine too of course. That someone is righteous by their own religious standards is neither here nor there in terms of justification to the rest of us who don't follow that religion. That a god will punish those who make the wrong choice of which god to follow isn't really much of a lever. In Medieval times in England, I expect there was sufficient hegemony by the Christian church to make the primary choice in most uneducated minds to be merely one of being Good or Bad by Christian standards and being judged on death. That's not the case now, thank goodness; there are competing ideologies and the fact of that ought to make people think about whether any of them are actually true too.

"Those who believe in free speech deny a platform to those who would abolish free speech. Who can blame them?"

That's not true, of course. People who want to abolish free speech have a right to a platform to make the argument because of people like me. They don't have a right to be listened too, and we don't have to respect their views. People like me just have to maintain the social superstructure so that diverse arguments can be made in the open. Similarly, I have no intention of denying Dodo his right to practice his religion in his own life (though I doubt very much he even attends mass) but the rest of us might fight to stop his Taleban-esque inclinations to force his religious strictures on the rest of us. He may well talk about Social Good which he interprets in a certain way so as to remove the freedom of others over their own lices but I have an alternative interpretation of Social Good which gives both he and I a decent amount of freedom instead.

DanJ0 said ..."Anyway, I doubt very much that Dodo actually believes in god but there's no doubt he promotes Roman Catholicism straight off the shelf here."

*sigh*

(Walks away for a cup of tea)

"I have no intention of denying Dodo his right to practice his religion in his own life (though I doubt very much he even attends mass) but the rest of us might fight to stop his Taleban-esque inclinations to force his religious strictures on the rest of us."

*sighs*

someone's looking for aggro.

(Another cuppa)

"He may well talk about Social Good which he interprets in a certain way so as to remove the freedom of others over their own lices ..."

LOL ... you keep your lice to yourself, thank you very much! Some are human disease agents.

I was not presuming to speak - except in the most general terms - about Peter's beliefs. Anyway, he's back now to speak for himself.

On the free speech issue, i was thinking specifically (should have said so) about Kerensky and the Bolsheviks: I believe in free speech, they don't, what do I do with them? And look what happened to Kerensky.

On the wider issue of free speech/censorship, I haven't heard a broadcast from a radical islamic preacher on TV. Have I missed something? We don't allow hate speech. Enoch Powell is still all but unmentionable. Look at the problem when Geert (or however you spell it) Wilders wanted to bring his film to Britain. Peter Hitchens had his microphone switched off at a university debate by those who considered him a fascist and wanted to prevent him from being heard. Look at the reaction to Nick Griffin's appearance on 'Question Time' and the efforts of those who wanted to prevent him even getting near the studio.

'Thanks for sharing': I assume you mean I made a statement of the obvious. I repeat it: forget dodos, let's talk ostriches. We are not immune to opinions simply because we reject them. As I've said before on an earlier thread, rejection of Nazism didn't protect the Jews. But you aren't the problem. You aren't the one who would reduce me to dhimmi status if the opportunity arose.

You were saying about maintaining the social superstructure so that diverse arguments can be made in the open. I was giving examples to show that the actual situation may be less open than you suggest.

Consider the situation in Holland. Look at what happened to Pym Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. Geert Wilders is living in safe houses under twenty-four hour police guard, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been forced to flee the country altogether. Social superstructure getting a bit wobbly there. Speak your mind, and you die.

There's probably a Muslim forum online where you can find someone to argue with you about "dhimmi" status, or the relative merits of, and supporting evidence for, Christianity and Islam. When I refer to Islam here it's for a very particular reason and I'm not interested in deviating from that myself.

"When I refer to Islam here it's for a very particular reason and I'm not interested in deviating from that myself."

An interesting comment.

Really, its just a debating 'tactic' in the 'game' you play. One wonders about your motives for participating here.

You're not interested in the differences between Christianity which allows for freedom of conscience, and Islam which doesn't. Nor are you interested in the very different reasons Islam and Catholicism have for objecting to sexual practices considered immoral or how they respond differently to them. And, finally, as an atheist, it matters not how these faiths developed or whether there is any rational approach to deciding if they have merit.

Why bother? Really, what's the point of the 'game' from your perspective?

My argument was broader. Reason indicates God's decrees about relationships between men and women and confining sex to monogamous, heterosexual marriage, work for the greater good.

Pornography degrades men, women and children. It is abusive and exploitative. It undermines the meaning of sex and reduces it to a hedonistic, animalistic pleasure. It also has significant social consequences reinforcing a culture that debases marriage and the conjugal relationship and undermines family life as a result. Just as legitimising homosexual sex and normalising it through a parody of 'marriage' does too.

And all you focus on is: "Dodo's authoritarian streak regarding State power" which I justified with reference to God! And you: "pointed out that Muslims do the same thing with their god too", taking the view that: "what use is a justification involving a god to someone who doesn't believe in that god?"

Do you accept at all, leaving God out of the argument, that pornography debases people and has social consequences beyond individual harm? If so, would you agree the State has a role in eradicating it?

We're not living in an open forum in which conflcting opinions can be freely aired. We're living in the shadow of Marcuse's repressive tolerance in which the 'dominant' discourses (eg Christianity) must be suppressed in favour of the 'victim' discourses (eg Islam).

The problem is when a victim discourse itself becomes dominant: turning on other victims, and on the very freedom that allowed it a voice in the first place.

Pim Fortuyn saw the problem very clearly, and said so. And paid with his life.

Dodo, you are using a variety of measures to justify State intrusion. I've simply applied some of them to a different situation as a form of reductio ad absurdum argument to see if you continue to be happy with the idea of State intrusion. Knowing that you have a particular penchant for clutching your tumbler in your hand later on at night for the bodily pleasure it gives you, I'm inclined to think that you haven't quite thought this through.

If you cannot see the difference between alcohol and pornography, all I can say is God help you!

They're entirely different. In and of itself, alcohol is not harmful. In and of itself, pornography is for the reasons I've given.

We're back to the point you side-stepped at the start of this thread:

What is 'normal' pornography? Who are you to impose your normative narrowness upon the more exotic and adventurous? Should we not be free to corrupt ourselves, if we so wish? Is it not a human right? Is not morality relative? Has not the era of religious restraint passed? Sexual licence has triumphed. Who are you to judge what is and is not depraved?"

You've no answer because you are a moral relativist - I'm not. And there is evidence to back my position up.

You see, with pornography not only are you corrupting yourself but you're corrupting those who are used to feed your habit and also normalising the corruption of sex and, by extension, family life.

Dodo: "They're entirely different. In and of itself, alcohol is not harmful. In and of itself, pornography is for the reasons I've given."

You carry on telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. The alcohol-related deaths, the drink driving, the domestic violence, the drain on police resource every weekend, the promiscuity beacuse of reduced inhibitions after usibg the drug, the unedifying behaviour of young people staggering around drunk, and so on, and so on? As is often pointed out, if alcohol was just discovered then there is no way governments would allow its legal use. Yet despite all your worries about the effects of pornography on the individual and society, you don't think society should impose a prohibition on alcohol and try to eradicate its use and you continue to use alcohol as a drug yourself. You're being inconsistent to the point of being incoherent, I'd say. Well, that's if you actually worried about the things you have tried to use to justify your State intrusion rather the hiding your desire to use the religious morality of your minority religion as the basis of law for the rest of us.

Dodo:"You've no answer because you are a moral relativist - I'm not. And there is evidence to back my position up."

Who are you to impose your religious morality on Muslims, Dodo? Why shouldn't they forbid alcohol for the rest of us? Why shouldn't they apply a gender division across society? Why shouldn't they insist you destroy your religious statues and imagery for the idolatry they think they are? Why shouldn't they hassle people in the street for dressing immodestly? Afterall, they are moral absolutists and they know that Allah is sovereign.

This IS, I know, an irrelevance to the pornography issue, but just some thoughts about your last post.

Where Muslims have the power, or are aspiring to it, they often do exactly those things you have outlined.

Remember that issue about the disappearing boars' heads on gateposts up North somewhere? Guess why? New churches in Saudi Arabia? Alcohol allowances flying even into liberal Dubai?

Bruce Bawer says that nearly all the rapes in Malmo (highest Islamic concentration in Sweden) are punishment of native Swedish girls who dress immodestly.

I do not fear the consequences for me in the after life for rejecting Islam as a religion, but I am well aware of how its doctrines might impinge on me in this one. Right now, and increasingly in the future.

It's a good question: a searching one, I mean with a lot of ramifications.

Firstly, I think it's happening. Child allowances for second and third wives. That just affects Muslims. But I believe in Denmark all kids - Muslim or not - get halal meat at school meals.

There was a programme on the origins of the EDL. One of the Luton Muslims (not an Imam and, it must be said, not supported by his local Imam) cited Sharia law as the solution for Britain's social problems: no drug problems, no alcohol problems, no immoral women, no gays. But then Islam is a total package - fusion of politics and religion - in a way that Christianity is not.

I've only given examples of how it IS happening, not whether it SHOULD. That's more difficult, and I'll need to think about it: how to express a complex issue in a brief format. I'll get back to you if I think I've cracked it.

DanJ0 is saying, I think, that religions don't have the right to determine a state's moral code, or its laws: or that, if Christianity does, Islam does as well. (Correct me if I've misrepresented you DanJ0.) This issue includes pornography, but other things as well.

I wanted to consider the question of natural law; and that since God is Creator his laws are not arbitrary, but intended for our well being.

That would have led back to the pornography issue, and alcohol too.

Too ambitious though, and I am happy to bow out of this particular debate and try to frame my thoughts better on some future thread.

Or, alternatively, you don't want to consider my response because it undermines your justification. Pornography is not inherently damaging at all; no doubt it serves a benign purpose for some people at some pionts in their lives. Your real objection is that it is morally wrong to you on the basis of the Roman Catholic view of sexual purpose. This becomes quite apparent from your refusal to advocate State intrusion over alcohol based on the significant damage it does in society. Moreover, you enjoy getting pissed yourself and don't want to give up your freedom yourself.

Explorer, Dodo knows that full well. He's just playing games, rerunning a version of the HLA Hart and Lord Devlin debate in 1964 with me. It's an old thing between us, which is why I don't take it very seriously.

What passes for sex in the homosexual community is of course merely heavy petting. Mutual masturbation, if you will. Gay types do not view sex, or indeed pornography, as anything more important than needing to give yourself a good scratch. We can wonder why this is, but as is often the case, the simplest answer is the best – gay people are de facto sterile. They do not possess a sexual drive at all - merely the physical remnant of an auto action. Readers may have experienced similar when a dog humps their leg. Unfortunately, this man has too.

Thus, pornography is not viewed by gay men, in all senses, as forbidden fruit, but as a stimulant to their desires. They have the same attitude to certain drugs. The physical act is foremost, whatever it takes.

If you are looking for a confession of shame by homosexual men who do view both adult and, appallingly, child pornography, you will be in for a long wait. You are asking them to deny themselves bread and butter.

DanJ0. Weird are teenage ‘scene’ gays who can count on 100 different partners in one year. Weird is sexual activity with a stranger who may or may not be carrying a virus that will spend the rest of your life trying to kill you. Weird is taking enough drugs that when you wake up, 24 hours are missing.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)